Field trials show GM crop farming could be 'disastrous' for wildlife

By Robert Uhlig, Farming Correspondent

12:01AM BST 17 Oct 2003

Bumblebees, butterflies, skylarks, yellowhammers, house sparrows, beetles and slugs all face "disaster" if ministers approve GM crops, experts said yesterday, after the publication of the results of field trials.

The long-awaited findings of the farm-scale evaluations, set up by the Government in 1999, showed that two of the three crops tested clearly damaged the environment.

Prof Christopher Pollock, chairman of the scientific steering committee that oversaw an experiment of unprecedented breadth and magnitude, said growing herbicide-resistant GM sugar beet and oilseed rape was worse for wildlife than the conventional varieties.

The scientists saw more bees and butterflies in and around conventional beet and rape than among their genetically-modified equivalents, mainly because there were more weeds providing cover and food for wildlife.

Dr David Gibbons, a member of the steering committee and head of conservation science at the RSPB, said the trial results were "unexpectedly dramatic".

Related Articles

He said there would be far less food for farmland birds if GM beet and spring oilseed rape were grown commercially. "Agricultural intensification has already caused declines of these birds and these two crops will undoubtedly worsen their plight."

He added: "The commercialisation of GM beet and oilseed rape could be disastrous for birds. The farm scale evaluations show that two GM crops harm the environment and ministers now have no choice but to refuse their approval."

Only GM maize showed any sign of benefiting the environment. Although there were not significantly more insects among GM maize, there were more weeds, giving scientists reason to believe that insects and wildlife would eventually prosper.

But scientists and anti-GM campaigners said conventional maize suffered in comparison with GM maize only because the trial involved using atrazine, a particularly powerful herbicide that has now been banned, on the conventional maize.

Dr Gibbons also called for the further research to compare GM maize with conventional maize grown without atrazine.

In their report the scientists said they would have no confidence in their findings "for example if changes in regulations meant that atrazine was no longer allowed on maize crops".

Responding to the warning in his report, Prof Pollock said farmers would find a replacement for atrazine and "the general validity of the trials remains though there will be new specific questions to be answered".

However, he added that he expected the question of the relevance of the findings in the light of the banning of atrazine to be the "main subject people will want to discuss" when the advisory committee on releases to the environment meets next month.

The committee is the Government's statutory adviser on GM crops and food. It will now consider the results from yesterday's eight scientific papers on the trials, consult with the public and then advise ministers.

There were also criticisms from working farmer members of Farm, a campaign group, that the trials were "completely useless for farmers" because they did not compare the yield of GM crops with conventional varieties.

Opponents of GM seized on the report as the "final nail in the coffin" for GM crops in Britain. Patrick Holden, the director of the Soil Association, which campaigns for organic food production, said: "We've always been critical of the scientific methodology of the trials as being too narrow, but even so the results show that GM crops would damage the environment.

"The Government mustn't use the maize results as a fig-leaf justification for GM crops."